Opportunity cost

The Devil’s Advocate™ →Go uptown In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights. Index — Click ᐅ to expand: The Devil’s Advocate Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Opportunity cost
/ˌɒpəˈtjuːnɪti kɒst/ (n.)

The potential advantages of taking this path one forgoes by taking that one. The principle underlying the proposition that one can’t have one’s cake, and eat it.

The JC is fomenting a theory that somewhere the notion of the opportunity cost has been lost to modern discourse. The idea that you can be this or that, or neither, but taking any of these options and enjoying its fruits means forgoing the alternatives, and their fruits, is one that appears not to have occurred to those under the age of thirty.

Marriage isn’t what it used to be

This article is in grave danger of descending into a grumpy middle-aged tract, but starts with the news, in August 2021, that one in five weddings now involves a prenuptial agreement.

Now the JC has no axe to grind about marriage — by all means, get hitched or don’t; see if I care — but more to the concept of what marriage is meant to be, at the outset: a permanent merger of social and economic interests. It is a commitment. The combination of resources for the expected betterment of both.

Now it may be that, along life’s rocky road, things don’t work out, but if the aspiration to permanence is to mean anything, one must at least put one’s skin in the game. That one party is disproportionately wealthy, or poor, one should deal with in one’s due dilly — aka “courtship” in the old days — before making the decision to commit.

To look at it this way is the regard a prenuptial agreement as a desire to have one’s cake and eat it too. It is to refrain from putting skin in the game; to refrain from drilling the holes in your longboats to stop your men running away.

Analysts at the Vampire Squid

You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money on a nine to five? Come, now children. Would you read Faust, if you thought the good doctor would keep possession of his soul?

The enlightenment cancelling the enlightenment

Kicking away the ladder is one thing: proposing to erase all records of its ascension, quite another.

The enlightenment has been a serial victim of erasure. The reductionist certainty that “all explanatory arrows point downward”; that there is a single unifying principle that governs the physical operation of the universe at all points, for all times; that all scientific disciplines are consistent and reduce, ultimately, to physics, is inferred quite without evidence — how could there be any? — and is transparently an inheritance from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

Likewise, the liberal pluralistic disposition — also a function of the enlightenment (though, curiously, incommensurate with the reductionism it accompanied) — a product of the towering intellects of the enlightenment: men like Hume, Smith, Mill, Bentham and Darwin — were necessary conditions for growth of continental philosophy, post modernism and the critical theories who would now write this stale colonial tradition from history.